Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 236‑R of 1985, decided on 23rd April, 1986.

(From the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 5‑2‑1985 passed in Civil Revision No. 54‑D of 1985).

‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑Suit by respondent claiming ownership and possession of land measuring 17 Marlas‑‑Decreed to extent of 14 Marlas‑‑Petitioners appeal and revision failed‑‑Petitioner urging before Supreme Court that by no principle his claim to 3 Marlas left out of suit property could be denied to him‑‑Revision petitions having been dismissed by High Court in limine and decree of trial Court with regard to 14 Marlas, to which petitioner had no objection, remaining unaltered, petitioner should not feel aggrieved‑‑There being no case for leave to appeal, petition dismissed.

Malik Muhammad Jafar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 13th April, 1986.

‑The petitioner, an unsuccessful defendant, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 5‑2‑1985, whereby a revision petition filed by him was dismissed affirming thereby the judgments of the two Courts below.

2. The plaintiff‑respondent instituted a civil suit claiming ownership and possession of a plot of land measuring 17 Marlas, situate in the Abadi of village Jand, Tehsil Pindigheb, District Campbellpur. The petitioner contested the suit but ultimately it was decreed. The trial Court held that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property but his ownership extends to only 14 Marlas in this plot and not in 17 Marlas as claimed in the plaint". The Additional District Judge dismissed the petitioner's appeal observing that "I endorse the findings of the learned trial Court on all the issues". The petitioner now objects to the observation in the judgment of the High Court dismissing his revision petition, in which the claim to 3 Marlas left out of the suit property claimed by the plaintiff‑respondent is concerned. It is urged that by no principle could it be denied to the petitioner.

3. We have gone through the judgments and decrees of all the Courts and find that the revision petition was dismissed in limine and the decree of the trial Court with regard to the 14 Marlas stands intact. To that, the petitioner has no objection. As regards the residue of 3 Marlas, the decree does not grant it to the plaintiff‑respondent and the petitioner should not feel aggrieved by the observation made when the decree remains unaltered. There is no case of leave to appeal which is refused.

M. I. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.